How great is Hyper-V.. can it or even should it do Exchange or even SQL
Hey All,
Quick question regarding performance and hardware.
I have used Hyper-V for RDS, Print, Second DC and DNS etc... Happy with that.
My question is... Can Hyper-V really be a contender for FILE servers, SQL and APP and of course the big one Exchange.
-------
My opinion is SQL should be PHYSICAL always with SAS drives.. however, I hear more and more people saying it should be ok.
-------
Scenario is
3x PE 1950 with 16GB RAM, PERC 5/ir. They either have Quad core 2.33Ghz or above. SAS drives...
POSSIBLY can use a 32GB system but thats not given so not classing as an option.
Can I really virtualise a SQL 2008 R2 and 30GB database in a Hyper-V. Also .. really wise to virtualise what would be 9x mailboxes only (there are more but they are VERY low hitting).
Bear in mind these servers only have dual GBit cards...
Can I have some comments please as I need to commit to something in next few hours and my fear of Hyper-V and what was ballooning and thinking of another layer to process is putting my right off
Looking forward to replies.
Many thanks in advance.
R
Quick question regarding performance and hardware.
I have used Hyper-V for RDS, Print, Second DC and DNS etc... Happy with that.
My question is... Can Hyper-V really be a contender for FILE servers, SQL and APP and of course the big one Exchange.
-------
My opinion is SQL should be PHYSICAL always with SAS drives.. however, I hear more and more people saying it should be ok.
-------
Scenario is
3x PE 1950 with 16GB RAM, PERC 5/ir. They either have Quad core 2.33Ghz or above. SAS drives...
POSSIBLY can use a 32GB system but thats not given so not classing as an option.
Can I really virtualise a SQL 2008 R2 and 30GB database in a Hyper-V. Also .. really wise to virtualise what would be 9x mailboxes only (there are more but they are VERY low hitting).
Bear in mind these servers only have dual GBit cards...
Can I have some comments please as I need to commit to something in next few hours and my fear of Hyper-V and what was ballooning and thinking of another layer to process is putting my right off
Looking forward to replies.
Many thanks in advance.
R
Are you using an iSCSI SAN or passthrough disks? What kind of usage are your servers getting?
For really busy workloads, *I* wouldn't virtualize - Hyper-V or VMWare. But you should know the performance stats of your servers and you should be doing testing to determine what's acceptable. There are costs involved in running physical servers and costs involved in running virtual servers. The costs for virtual is less in general because you put more on hardware...
Frankly, if you're talking about 1950s, you should be replacing them - they are out of warranty and relatively weak systems.
Further, it all depends on how you design things. The more systems running the more stress on the disks - disks are one of the slowest parts of the systems. In general, the recommendation is 15K SAS drives in a RAID 10 or 5 or 6 for best performance. But performance shouldn't be a real factor for you if you're still running on servers that could be 5+ years old and out of warranty.
For really busy workloads, *I* wouldn't virtualize - Hyper-V or VMWare. But you should know the performance stats of your servers and you should be doing testing to determine what's acceptable. There are costs involved in running physical servers and costs involved in running virtual servers. The costs for virtual is less in general because you put more on hardware...
Frankly, if you're talking about 1950s, you should be replacing them - they are out of warranty and relatively weak systems.
Further, it all depends on how you design things. The more systems running the more stress on the disks - disks are one of the slowest parts of the systems. In general, the recommendation is 15K SAS drives in a RAID 10 or 5 or 6 for best performance. But performance shouldn't be a real factor for you if you're still running on servers that could be 5+ years old and out of warranty.
ASKER
This setup is for a small company of 10x with occasional low hitting 10+ users.
They are hot swap disks as part of 1950 chassis.
Option is RAID 1 with 10K and 15K disks.
30GB SQL db all 10x main users use this..
1 Gigabit Network with Netgear switches.
200GB file storage with lot hit on access.
20GB Application files (Core is 500MB - others are linked files).
The 1950's and possible 2950 are only options available and they are happy they understand they are out of original warranty and have been superceeded etc...
Its a small site TBH.. nothing major..
R
They are hot swap disks as part of 1950 chassis.
Option is RAID 1 with 10K and 15K disks.
30GB SQL db all 10x main users use this..
1 Gigabit Network with Netgear switches.
200GB file storage with lot hit on access.
20GB Application files (Core is 500MB - others are linked files).
The 1950's and possible 2950 are only options available and they are happy they understand they are out of original warranty and have been superceeded etc...
Its a small site TBH.. nothing major..
R
ASKER
Sorry LOW HIT on file access ... Word Docs, Spreadsheets etc... for 10x users.. with main hit on App directory, SQL and Exchange..
R
R
if the server sizing is correct SQL and Exchange are fully supported on HyperV and VMWare and there is no performance issues what-so-ever.
I am assuming off course you are deploying on a correctly sized and configured disk groups with RAID controller etc...
I am assuming off course you are deploying on a correctly sized and configured disk groups with RAID controller etc...
ASKER
Well the VM would have 8GB RAM and 2x cores (3.0Ghz) and will be running on RAID 1 (no other option) SAS 15K drives ... possible 10K for Exchange.
Would you say this is ok.. Fine for all other services I have ran.
Just worried about performance and throughput as only 2x NICS...
Thanks
R
Would you say this is ok.. Fine for all other services I have ran.
Just worried about performance and throughput as only 2x NICS...
Thanks
R
ASKER
By that.. the host would have 8GB RAM also as they are 16GB machines.
Or if I use 32GB machine, then there would be up to 3x VM's running.
Any comments
Many thanks for all responses.
R
Or if I use 32GB machine, then there would be up to 3x VM's running.
Any comments
Many thanks for all responses.
R
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
What about SQL anybody?
Thanks
R
Thanks
R
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
Thanks for responses
ASKER